4 ms·

Meh. The imminency of "Major New Technology Just Around The Corner" has always been a favourite argument for the anti-progress crowd. EDIT to add: Before Hyper

Meh. The imminency of "Major New Technology Just Around The Corner" has always been a favourite argument for the anti-progress crowd. EDIT to add: Before Hyperloop, it was Maglev. And frankly, a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle.

Brakenshire 9y ago
> a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle. Nah, it connects most of England's largest cities, and will be 2/3rds of the network which will connect all of the cities of the North of England into something approaching a single labour market. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham will be all be within 30-50 minutes of each other, with London within an hour and a half, with trains running between destinations 2 or 3 times an hour. The value of that is enormous.
- gaius 9y ago
  It would have been politically a LOT easier of they'd built a Birmingham-Newcastle leg first
  - sgt101 9y ago
    and probably better for the long term economy as well; the last thing Birmingham needs is a reason why London is a good base for doing business in Birmingham.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      This is a pet peeve of mine. It hurts not just the other cities in the UK, but London as well. We don't alleviate overcrowding in London by making it easier to move to London. We alleviate overcrowding in London by making more other locations economically stronger. That should mean strengthening a region around Birmingham, faster links connecting the Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester triangle + tack on Liverpool, and a wide orbital around London improving connections between the towns around London that now are reduced to feeder/sleeper towns. There are towns around London that has decent direct rail tracks, but where the fastest rail route is a 2x-3x longer journey in to a London terminal and back out again. Actually run direct trains, and you suddenly have new viable commuter regions that bypass the centre. Only after that should we think about making the links between these centres faster. The problem of course is that many of these will need to be run at substantial losses for years before enough companies etc. will move/get established to change transport patterns, and it's so much easier to justify building more expensive routes where there is existing overcrowding. Never mind that doing so just attracts more people.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Perhaps. There would also have been political costs incurred due to the overcrowding on the southern end of the WCML and that then being apparently a lower priority than providing a quicker link between two cities. And yes, I realise the XC trains around Birmingham (inc. to Newcastle) are frequently overcrowded, but there's a comparatively cheap solution to this: buy more trains.
- twic 9y ago
  The main point of HS2 is that it will relieve congestion on the existing tracks, and allow more commuter services to run: https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/03/the-capacity-benefits-of-hs2/ https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/03/the-capacity-benefits... http://www.citymetric.com/transport/hs2-isnt-about-north-england-all-its-about-commuters-milton-keynes-1059 http://www.citymetric.com/transport/hs2-isnt-about-north-eng... The idea that it will turn a load of separate cities into one big city is basically fantasy, as i understand it - this is about HS3, but the analysis is much the same: http://www.citymetric.com/transport/crossrail-north-really-biggest-priority-north-3295 http://www.citymetric.com/transport/crossrail-north-really-b... And yes, i do get all my information from CityMetric, since you ask. It's basically Buzzfeed for transport policy, i love it.

Brakenshire 9y ago

> a significantly better argument against HS2 is that it's an impossibly expensive boondoggle. Nah, it connects most of England's largest cities, and will be 2/3rds of the network which will connect all of the cities of the North of England into something approaching a single labour market. Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Birmingham will be all be within 30-50 minutes of each other, with London within an hour and a half, with trains running between destinations 2 or 3 times an hour. The value of that is enormous.

gaius 9y ago
It would have been politically a LOT easier of they'd built a Birmingham-Newcastle leg first
- sgt101 9y ago
  and probably better for the long term economy as well; the last thing Birmingham needs is a reason why London is a good base for doing business in Birmingham.
  - vidarh 9y ago
    This is a pet peeve of mine. It hurts not just the other cities in the UK, but London as well. We don't alleviate overcrowding in London by making it easier to move to London. We alleviate overcrowding in London by making more other locations economically stronger. That should mean strengthening a region around Birmingham, faster links connecting the Leeds - Sheffield - Manchester triangle + tack on Liverpool, and a wide orbital around London improving connections between the towns around London that now are reduced to feeder/sleeper towns. There are towns around London that has decent direct rail tracks, but where the fastest rail route is a 2x-3x longer journey in to a London terminal and back out again. Actually run direct trains, and you suddenly have new viable commuter regions that bypass the centre. Only after that should we think about making the links between these centres faster. The problem of course is that many of these will need to be run at substantial losses for years before enough companies etc. will move/get established to change transport patterns, and it's so much easier to justify building more expensive routes where there is existing overcrowding. Never mind that doing so just attracts more people.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Perhaps. There would also have been political costs incurred due to the overcrowding on the southern end of the WCML and that then being apparently a lower priority than providing a quicker link between two cities. And yes, I realise the XC trains around Birmingham (inc. to Newcastle) are frequently overcrowded, but there's a comparatively cheap solution to this: buy more trains.
twic 9y ago
The main point of HS2 is that it will relieve congestion on the existing tracks, and allow more commuter services to run: https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/03/the-capacity-benefits-of-hs2/ https://www.railengineer.uk/2014/01/03/the-capacity-benefits... http://www.citymetric.com/transport/hs2-isnt-about-north-england-all-its-about-commuters-milton-keynes-1059 http://www.citymetric.com/transport/hs2-isnt-about-north-eng... The idea that it will turn a load of separate cities into one big city is basically fantasy, as i understand it - this is about HS3, but the analysis is much the same: http://www.citymetric.com/transport/crossrail-north-really-biggest-priority-north-3295 http://www.citymetric.com/transport/crossrail-north-really-b... And yes, i do get all my information from CityMetric, since you ask. It's basically Buzzfeed for transport policy, i love it.